1. 08 Jul, 2016 1 commit
    • Drew's avatar
      Add support for C language to atllbuild · e2fa4f07
      Drew authored
      This PR lets you mix .swift, .h, and .c files all in the same atllbuild task.  It works a lot like Xcode's behavior, if you've used that.
      
      \# Rationale
      
      I feel the need to defend this feature, since I have been previously on the record as saying "the entire value is debatable" (https://www.mail-archive.com/swift-evolution@swift.org/msg01829.html).
      
      There are 5 cases where I think it makes sense to add a little C to your Swift project:
      
      * To use the odd feature Swift doesn't support.  Recently, I needed to call a variadic C function; Swift cannot call them, C is our only hope
      * To work around a Swift compiler bug.  Several of my projects have this case.
      * To repackage an existing Xcode project where somebody used C in it.  I have not investigated and don't want to investigate whether that somebody was sane or insane, but we should at least be able to build their project.
      * To include headers from a system C library.  SwiftPM tries to solve this with module maps, however it doesn't hide the implementation details https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-655.  This feature can actually hide them with a few different methods discussed below, which is a clear win.
      * To write Swift bindings for a C library.  This generally involves a little C glue code (such as using a header or something), and for reasons that will become clear, using our C support is better than previous approaches at that problem.
      
      \# Rationale-NOT:
      
      Additional rationale:
      
      * SwiftPM will probably add this eventually
      * per #113, we should be a superset of their functionality
      
      I would like to be very clear about my goals:
      
      * This is really only designed for the case of "need a little C in your Swift project", not anything larger
      * This is not a replacement for e.g. GNU Make or a general-purpose C buildsystem, nor will it become one
      * The preferred mechanism for building a real C library is shelling out to your real C buildsystem
      * Nobody should be repackaging their established C libraries as atllbuild tasks.  atllbuild is designed to build Swift projects, not C projects.
      
      \# Design
      
      * You can now specify `.c` and `.h` files in the sources for atllbuild tasks
          * Also `**.c` and `**.h` just like `**.swift`
          * Like `.swift`, no files are scanned by default, everything is explicit
      * Adding `.c` files causes them to be compiled and linked into the atllbuild task just like swift files
      * Adding `.h` files exposes declarations to Swift.  It works much like a bridging header; put stuff in header files and then Swift code will see it.
          * Your `.h`s can import other `.h`s (from the system, or anywhere else) and you otherwise have access to the complete C preprocessor
      * New atllbuild setting `c-compile-options` specifies compile options for C files.  `compile-options` is ignored for C.
      * C files work as you'd expect, including support for things like configurations, optimization, atbuild preprocessor macros, etc.
      
      \# Linking
      
      The standard `link-options` sets link options for both C and Swift; since they are linked into the same library there is no individual control.  So if you want to link your C (and Swift) code against curl, you could say `:link-options ["-lcurl"]` for example.
      
      The problem with this approach is that everybody who depends on you might also need `-lcurl`.  Traditionally we've solved this with overlays that we expose to callers.
      
      SwiftPM avoids this problem by requiring everyone to create e.g. `CCurl` everywhere: https://github.com/apple/swift-package-manager/blob/master/Documentation/SystemModules.md
      
      And in fact people do: https://github.com/IBM-Swift/CCurl
      
      The problem is now you have to import `CCurl` everywhere (even in files that don't directly use it).  See generally, https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-655, https://gist.github.com/briancroom/5d0f1b966fa9ef0ae4950e97f9d76f77
      
      Here is the cool part though.  This PR adds a new option `:module-map-link ["curl"]`.  That will inject a link directive into both the module map we use at buildtime and the one we export e.g. into an atbin.
      
      Emitting that link directive has the effect of injecting `:link-options ["-lcurl"]`.  However, it will *also* inject that link option into any Swift module that imports this one.  The result is that downstream no longer needs to add `:link-options ["-lcurl"]` anymore.
      
      Additonally, since we achieve this in a single module, there is no `CCurl` to import anymore.  The details of linking to the C library are more effectively hidden.
      
      For these reasons, I believe using the C support in this PR is way more effective for writing bindings than any other solution.
      
      \# Known issues
      
      * Using `.h` in `sources` requires a synthesized module map
      * Using `.c` in `sources` is not supported for bitcode
      * Using `module-map-link` requires the module map to be distributed for the link to take effect on downstream; we recommend `packageatbin` for packing build products
      * Currently, swift functions are not "visible" to C code (like they are visible to ObjC from Xcode) although presumably if you had a function, knew its calling convention, and knew its c-name, you could totally call it from C.
      e2fa4f07
  2. 11 May, 2016 1 commit
  3. 10 May, 2016 1 commit
  4. 18 Jan, 2016 1 commit
  5. 17 Jan, 2016 2 commits